There is a concept based on a consensus of the great parties, which is referred to as Haagsche mores, or the ways of The Hague (the Dutch government).  This concept has been shattered twice in recent years. The first time Pim Fortuyn, known for intelligence and populism, denounced it by attacking Muslim immigration. He was later assassinated by an animal rights activist. The second occurrence included the Somali-born Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who achieved fame for her sweet ways and strong discourse against Islam. She was forced to leave the Netherlands a couple of years ago.

 

Geert Wilders is not just any Dutch politician, but one who likes controversy and knows how to exploit the weaknesses of the Dutch system. He was extremely troublesome for his party of origin, the liberal party. He left to start his own: the Party of Liberty, in which wants to draw down the welfare state. He suggests the beneficiaries of it are mainly Muslims who lack desire to integrate into the country and its customs. He has gone pretty far on the subject calling Islam retarded and asking for the Koran to be forbidden, comparing it to Mein Kampf.

 

Ian Buruma told the story of a Murder in Amsterdam in which verbose cultural icon Theo Van Gogh was killed on the streets of the most multicultural town of Europe, or so the story goes. Mohammed Bouyeri, the murderer, was a Dutch citizen who despite his Muslim upbringing had trouble speaking Arabic, but was particularly fluent in Dutch. He demonstrated this by writing a poem found on the stabbed body of Van Gogh which threatened Hirsi Ali and other “extremist unbelievers.”

 

With historical events such as this in mind, the Dutch government attempted to stop Wilders once rumours started to spread that he was preparing a film against the Koran. Curiously enough this is the same government which thinks Hirsi Ali no longer needs the protection of Dutch authorities, now that she no longer lives in the Netherlands. Be that as it may, all sorts of movements took place in The Hague environment to prevent the film from airing.

 

Conversations have taken place between diverse authorities and Wilders himself. The chance of outrage and rioting has been presumably brought forward. Yet, Wilders seems undeterred.

 

The film has not been broadcasted and apparently has not even been finished, and yet the authorities have been the ones generating the discontent. Its content is supposed to be somewhat conspicuous, or even blatantly disturbing for the Muslim faith. Hence, even without knowledge regarding the actual content, discussions are being held preventively. To Wilders this proves he has a point. To Hirsi Ali, speaking to the television channel Nova http://www.novatv.nl/index.cfm?ln=nl&fuseaction=videoaudio.details&reportage_id=5757&CFID=36901889&CFTOKEN=12538086, it proves the clumsiness of the administration and its lack of leadership.

 

Wilders said that the film should be ten minutes long and will show to what extent the Koran is a book that is an inspiration to intolerance, murder and terrorism. It is supposed to be aired by a national TV sender, perhaps in the time frame allocated for political parties.

 

The administration states that freedom of expression, though allowed, may not enter into the realm of questioning people’s beliefs or convictions unnecessarily. This seems quite hypocritical coming from a country that owes its independence to questioning, by the way of war, the religious status quo of the sixteenth century.  While the administration has the right to oppose such freedom of expression, it is doubtful that it can go much further.

 

In the meanwhile, the press has reacted. Initially, on November 28^th a leak to the most relevant Dutch newspaper, De Telegraaf, made public Wilders’ intent to make a film. Since then, the newspapers close to the establishment like NRC Handelsblad have produced opinion articles calling for the understanding of Muslims. The more religious newspapers, such as Trouw, which has developed a bond with different faiths although its readers remain suspicious of certain Islamic attitudes, have navigated the waves. More eloquent publications like Elsevier have published articles by the Iranian-born Afshin Ellian, a law professor and critic of Islam, who has formulated an argument using the Rule of Law which clearly includes freedom of expression. It is a pity that the famous writer Leon de Winter has recently abandoned opinion-making practices to write a novel. His insights would have been interesting.

 

Outside of the Netherlands, Fox News aired an interview with Wilders. He comes across as being proud of his country, yet is very clear and blunt regarding his views. He seems to forget that being Dutch means adhering to the polder model. A polder is a part of land built on the sea. In order to make living on the polder possible, it is moved away from the sea. This is possibly the greatest achievement by the Dutch. It requires great effort to maintain and, above all, creates an unbreakable union through the commitment of the people building it. Lack of respect or commitment to the polder is akin to a sin. You do not damage what was built buy all which benefits all. The government of the Netherlands is the political version of a polder, or the polder model. Loyalty is extremely important. Hirsi Ali also failed to recognize this and had to endure the consequences. It is hard to know how forgiving Wilders’ countrymen will be regarding his departure from this attitude.

 

Is another murder in Amsterdam in the making? Is censorship regaining its grounds in the heart of Europe? How far will Europeans go to defend freedom of expression? What are the limits of this freedom where Islam is concerned? Does the Rule of Law have to give in to peace on the polder?

 

All these are questions to be solved by Europeans and Westerners as a whole. One thing, however, seems very clear. Once you give up a bit preventively, chances are you will only be hated more. And as the French writer Revel said: once you have given all up, they cannot even thank you, because morally “you don’t exist any more”. Peace on earth, is a noble aim, but if it is at the cost of liberty; it might not be worth it.